Short answer. Yes. Once a debtor delays in delivering a determinate thing, Article 1165 makes him responsible for any fortuitous event that happens afterward, until he actually completes delivery. The delay strips away the fortuitous-event defense he would otherwise have, so the seller bears the loss even though the typhoon itself was not his doing.
What the law says
If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery.
Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver. Read the full provision →
Delay changes who bears the risk
Ordinarily, a debtor is excused from liability when an unforeseen event like a typhoon destroys the specific thing owed, since no one can be blamed for genuine acts of nature. Article 1165 removes that excuse once the debtor is already in delay, shifting the risk of loss onto him for as long as the delay continues. Before the delay began, the loss would simply have fallen on whoever legally owned the item at that moment; once delay sets in, the law reassigns that risk to the party who failed to perform on time, regardless of who technically still held title.
Why the rule exists
A debtor who was supposed to deliver on time but did not should not get the benefit of bad luck that happens only because delivery was late. If the item had been delivered on schedule, it would already have been in the buyer's hands when the typhoon struck, so the seller's own delay is treated as the real cause of the loss. The law essentially asks what would have happened had the seller performed as promised, and refuses to let him escape responsibility for a risk that his own default helped create.
What the buyer can do
Because the seller remains responsible for the loss, the buyer may still demand the value of the item plus damages for the delay itself, instead of simply losing the item along with the purchase price paid. The seller cannot point to the typhoon as a fortuitous event defense once his own delay is established. This remedy binds only the seller who was actually in delay, not one merely accused of it without proof.
When the seller can still escape liability
The seller is not without any recourse at all, since delay itself must first be properly established, meaning the buyer had demanded performance and the seller failed to comply on time, or delay was otherwise excused under the contract. If the seller can show that the loss would have happened even had he delivered on schedule, for instance because the typhoon would have struck the buyer's own premises just as easily, the connection between the delay and the loss weakens considerably, and the ordinary fortuitous-event defense may still apply. A seller who can point to a valid reason the delay itself was excusable, such as the buyer's own refusal to accept an earlier tender of delivery, is also in a different position than one who simply failed to perform without justification.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rebecca T. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation, G.R. No. 146594, June 10, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver
- Civil Code, Article 1170 — Liability for Fraud, Negligence, Delay
- Civil Code, Article 1174 — Fortuitous Events